There is medium evidence and medium agreement that climatic stressors can worsen the complex negative impacts of strife and conflict (Schleussner et al. 2016252; Barnett and Palutikof 2014254; Scheffran et al. 2012255). Climate change and human mobility could be a factor that heightens tensions over scarce strategic resources, a further destabilising influence in fragile states experiencing socio-economic and political unrest (Carleton and Hsiang 2016a256). Conflict and changes in weather patterns can worsen conditions for people working in rainfed agriculture or subsistence farming, interrupting production systems, degrading land and vegetation further (Papaioannou 2016257; Adano and Daudi 2012258). In recent decades, droughts and other climatic stressors have compounded livelihood pressures in areas already torn by strife (Tessler et al. 2015259; Raleigh et al. 2015260), such as in the Horn of Africa. Seizing of agricultural land by competing factions, preventing food distribution in times of shortage have, in this region and others, contributed to a triad of food insecurity, humanitarian need, and large movements of people (Theisen et al. 2011261; Mohmmed et al. 2018262; Ayeb-Karlsson et al. 2016263; von Uexkull et al. 2016264; Gleick 2014265; Maystadt and Ecker 2014266). People fleeing complex situations may return if peaceful conditions can be established. Climate change and development responses induced by climate change in countries and regions are likely to exacerbate tensions over water and land, and its impact on agriculture, fisheries, livestock and drinking water downstream. Shared pastoral landscapes used by disadvantaged or otherwise vulnerable communities are particularly impacted on by conflicts that are likely to become more severe under future climate change (Salehyan and Hendrix 2014267; Hendrix and Salehyan 2012268). Extreme events could considerably enhance these risks, in particular long-term drying trends (Kelley et al. 2015269; Cutter et al. 2012a270). There is medium evidence and medium agreement that governance is key in magnifying or moderating climate change impact and conflict (Bonatti et al. 2016271).
There is medium evidence and high agreement that adaptive management can help reduce anthropogenic impacts of changes of land and climate, including: species decline and habitat loss (participative identification, monitoring, and review of species at risk as well as decision-making surrounding protective measures) (Fontaine 20111129; Smith 20111130) including quantity and timing of harvest of animals (Johnson 2011a1131), human participation in natural resource-based recreational activities, including selection fish harvest quotas and fishing seasons from year to year (Martin and Pope 20111132), managing competing interests of land-use planners and conservationists in public lands (Moore et al. 20111133), managing endangered species and minimising fire risk through land-cover management (Breininger et al. 20141134), land-use change in hardwood forestry through mediation of hardwood plantation forestry companies and other stakeholders, including those interested in water, environment or farming (Leys and Vanclay 20111135), and SLM protecting biodiversity, increasing carbon storage, and improving livelihoods (Cowie et al. 20111136). There is medium evidence and medium agreement that, despite abundant literature and theoretical explanation, there has remained imperfect realisation of adaptive management because of several challenges: lack of clarity in definition and approach, few success stories on which to build an experiential base practitioner knowledge of adaptive management, paradigms surrounding management, policy and funding that favour reactive approaches instead of the proactive adaptive management approach, shifting objectives that do not allow for the application of the approach, and failure to acknowledge social uncertainty (Allen et al. 20111137). Adaptive management includes participation (Section 7.6.4), the use of indicators (Section 7.5.5), in order to avoid maladaptation and trade-offs while maximising synergies (Section 7.5.6).
While some authors see LSLAs as investments that can contribute to more efficient food production at larger scales (World Bank 20111504; Deininger and Byerlee 20121505), others have warned that local food security may be threatened by them (Daniel 20111506; Golay and Biglino 20131507; Lavers 20121508). Reports suggest that recent land-grabbing has affected 12 million people globally in terms of declines in welfare (Adnan 20131509; Davis et al. 20141510). De Schutter (2011)1511 argues that large-scale land acquisitions will: a) result in types of farming less liable to reduce poverty than smallholder systems, b) increase local vulnerability to food price shocks by favouring export agriculture and c) accelerate the development of a market for land, with detrimental impacts on smallholders and those depending on common property resources. Land-grabbing can threaten not only agricultural lands of farmers, but also protected ecosystems, like forests and wetlands (Hunsberger et al. 20171512; Carter et al. 20171513; Ehara et al. 20181514). 2b1af7f3a8